confluence_add_inline_comment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that the comment attaches to the first or Nth occurrence and that text_selection must match. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., if text not found), authentication requirements, or idempotency, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: a one-sentence summary followed by a structured Args block. Every sentence adds value, and the key action is front-loaded. No extraneous words or repetitions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers input parameters well but lacks output information (e.g., return value, comment ID) and error cases (e.g., text not found). Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the agent needs more context for robust invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning: page_id accepts numeric IDs or Confluence URLs; body is plain text converted to ADF; match_index is 0-based with default 0; text_selection is exact text. This is far beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Add an inline (annotation) comment anchored to specific text on a page,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'confluence_add_comment' by emphasizing the anchoring to text, and from 'confluence_list_inline_comments' by being a creation operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for inline text comments through the phrase 'anchored to specific text.' This differentiates from general page comments (sibling 'confluence_add_comment'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving minor ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.